Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui



Download 0.54 Mb.
Page8/17
Date conversion20.10.2016
Size0.54 Mb.
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   ...   17

The Illness of Extravagance, and Zero Casualties

Large-scale use of costly weapons in order to realize objectives and reduce casualties without counting costs -- this kind of warfare which can only be waged by men of wealth is a game that the American military is good at. "Desert Storm" manifested once again the Americans' unlimited extravagance in war and has already become an addiction. Airplanes which cost an average of US$25 million each carried out 11,000 wanton and indiscriminate bombings in a 42 day period, destroying the general headquarters of the renewed Socialist Party with each US$1.3 million Tomahawk guided missile, taking aim at foxholes with precision guided bombs worth tens of thousands of U.S. dollars... even if the American generals knew as soon as they began that they need not spend so much on this unrestrained battle banquet costing US$61 billion, using such an ostentatious battle style of "attacking birds with golden bullets", their over-extravagance would still not have been prevented. An American-made bomber is like a flying mountain of gold, more costly than many of its targets. Shouldn't hitting a quite possibly insignificant target with tons of American dollars arouse people's suspicions? Aside from this, during the long duration of 161 days, more than 52,000 personnel and over 8,000,000 tons of goods and materials were brought over day and night to the front line from America and all over Europe, including thousands of sun hats long since scrapped in some warehouse and crates of American fruit rotting on Riyadh. Major General Pagonis, the commanding officer in charge of logistic support, calls such large-scale chaotic and extravagant safeguarding activities "possibly historically unheard of" naval operations. However, according to the vivid statements of the U.S. Department of Defense, this is analogous to having moved all of the living facilities of Mississippi's capital city, Jackson, to Saudi Arabia. Of all the soldiers in the world, probably only the Americans would consider this a necessary extravagance in order to win one war. [12]



It is just this point that strikes people strangely. However, the Pentagon, which was completely remolded by McNamara in the spirit of commerce, all along could only estimate the innumerable costs of luxury style war. [13] Even the Armed Services Committee of the House of Representatives, an organization that frequently conducts verbal warfare with four star generals over money, did not even utter a word regarding the astonishing expenditures of this war. In the respective investigation reports done on the Gulf War, the key effect of high technology weaponry was given almost all equally high appraisals. Secretary of Defense Cheney said "we lead fully one generation in the area of weapon technology," and Congressman Aspen responded "the benefits demonstrated by high tech weaponry have exceeded our most optimistic estimates." If you cannot make out the overtones of my praises and only think they are proud of the American military for having fully realized their war objectives by defeating Iraq with the aid of high technology weapons, then you may think that this however is the typical nonsense spoken by two who have different opinions regarding the ability of technology to bring success, and you also are not yet fully aware of the meaning of American style warfare. What you must know is that this is a nationality that has never been willing to pay the price of life and, moreover, has always vied for victory at all costs. The appearance of high technology weaponry can now satisfy these extravagant hopes of the American people. During the Gulf War, of 500,000 troops, there were only 148 fatalities and 458 wounded. Goals that they long since only dreamt were almost realized -- "no casualties." Ever since the Vietnam War, both the military and American society have been sensitized to human casualties during military operations, almost to the point of morbidity. Reducing casualties and achieving war objectives have become the two equal weights on the American military scale. These common American soldiers who should be on the battlefield have now become the most costly security in war, like precious china bowls that people are afraid to break. All of the opponents who have engaged in battle with the American military have probably mastered the secret of success - if you have no way of defeating this force, you should kill its rank and file soldiers. [14] This point, taken from the U.S. Congressional report's emphasis on "reducing casualties is the highest objective in formulating the plan," can be unequivocally confirmed. "Pursuit of zero casualties," this completely compassionate simple slogan, has actually become the principal motivating factor in creating American style extravagant warfare. Therefore, unchecked use of stealth aircraft, precision ammunition, new tanks, and helicopters, along with long distance attack and blanket bombing - for all of these, weapons are okay as are tricks, so that there are no dual objectives that at the same time carry contradictions - there must be victory without casualties.

Warfare framed on this basis can only be like killing a chicken with a bull knife. Its high technology, high investment, high expenditure, and high payback feature, make its requirements for military strategy and combat skill far lower than its requirements for the technological performance of weaponry. Even in successful wars of this dimension, there is not one outstanding battle that is laudable. Compared with the advanced technology that they possess, the American military clearly is technologically stagnant and it is not good at seizing opportunities provided by new technology for new military tactics. Aside from effective use of advanced technological weaponry, we are not sure how much of a disparity exists between the military thought revealed in this war by Americans and other countries. The difference at least cannot be any bigger than that between their weaponry. Perhaps it is precisely because of this that this war was unable to become a masterpiece of military skill. Instead it became, to a great extent, a sumptuous international fair of high technology weapons with the United States as the representative and, as a result, began the spread of the disease of American style war extravagance on a global scale. At the same time as huge amounts of U.S. dollars were trampling Iraq, it also muddled soldiers all over the world for a time. As the world's leading arms dealers, Americans naturally are overjoyed. In the face of this typical war with its advanced technology, dull warfare, and huge spending, just as with a Hollywood movie, with its simple plot, complex special effects, and identical patterns, for a long time after the war people could not understand the main threads of this complicated affair and believed that modern warfare is fought in just this way, leaving those who cannot fight such an extravagant war feeling inadequate. This is why the military forums in every country since the Gulf War are full of a faction yearning for high technology weapons and calling for high technology wars.

In discussing the talented American inventor, Thomas Edison, poet Jeffers writes, "We... ... are skilled in machinery and are infatuated with luxuries." Americans have a strong inborn penchant for these two things as well as a tendency to turn their pursuit of the highest technology and its perfection into a luxury, even including weapons and machinery. General Patton, who liked to carry ivory handled pistols, is typical of this. This inclination makes them rigidly infatuated with and therefore have blind faith in technology and weapons, always thinking that the road to getting the upper hand with war can be found with technology and weapons. This inclination also makes them anxious at any given time that their own leading position in the realm of weaponry is wavering, and they continually alleviate these concerns by manufacturing more, newer, and more complex weapons. As a result of this attitude, when the weapons systems which are daily becoming heavier and more complicated come into conflict with the terse principles required of actual combat, they always stand on the side of the weapons. They would rather treat war as the opponent in the marathon race of military technology and are not willing to look at it more as a test of morale and courage, wisdom and strategy. They believe that as long as the Edisons of today do not sink into sleep, the gate to victory will always be open to Americans. Self confidence such as this has made them forget one simple fact - it is not so much that war follows the fixed race course of rivalry of technology and weaponry as it is a game field with continually changing direction and many irregular factors. Whether you wear Adidas or Nike cannot guarantee you will become the winner.

It appears that Americans, however, do not plan to pay attention to this. They drew the benefit of the Gulf War's technological victory and obviously have resolutely spared no cost to safeguard their leading position in high technology. Even though the many difficulties with funding have brought them up against the embarrassment of having difficulty continuing, they have not been able to change their passion for new technology and new weapons. The detailed list of extravagant weapons constantly being drawn up by the U.S. military and approved by Congress will certainly get longer and longer [15], but the list of American soldier casualties in future wars may not necessarily be "zero" because of wishful thinking.



Group. Expeditionary Force. Integrated Force.

"What kind of army does the U.S. Army need in the 21st century?" This is a question that has puzzled the U.S. Army for the last 10 years of the 20th century. [16] During the Gulf War, the effect of the Army's mediocre show along with the high technology weapons on the rhythm of battle formed a clear contrast. The U.S. Army, which all along has been more conservative than the Navy and the Air Force, finally became conscious of the need to work out a system for carrying out reforms. What is interesting is that the role of resistance in this instance was not the Army's upper echelon. Rather, it was the new division commanders who had just climbed up to higher positions from command levels and the new commanders who replaced them. The views of those of the "brigade faction" wearing the eagle insignia and the sign of the maple leaf, however, are in complete contradiction. They believe that it is the Army troops that have been unable to pass the test of war and therefore must undergo a major operation. The "crack troops," "model troops," and "primary brigade," these three programs, have been handed over to General Sullivan. Even though this Army Chief of Staff has admiringly embodied the third program's "new thinking for future operations," he has still not been able to persuade the majority of generals to accept it. The result has been that, after he was relieved of his office, there was a change of heart between the conservatives and the reformists and the Army made the Fourth Mechanized Unit the foundation in January 1996 to organize a new experimental brigade of 15,800 men. [17] The position of the "divisional faction" clearly prevailed. The members of the "brigade faction", however, were not willing to just let the matter drop. They staunchly believed that a "military force that is excessively massive and cumbersome will be difficult to suit to the combat requirements of the 21st century." The military force which began to be implemented during the period of short range to complex guns must be completely rescinded, and five to six thousand new-type combat troops should be substituted to form the new Army type for basic combat. In order to relieve the generals' feelings of disgust, they displayed experience in the ways of the world and retained equally high-ranking military positions as the old-style Army in the new program. [18] At just the critical moment of the incessant debate between the "divisional" and "brigade" factions, the director of the U.S. Army Battle Command Laboratory, Army Lieutenant Colonel Maigeleige [transliteration as printed 7796 2706 7191 2047] sounded another new call. In his book, "Break the Factional Position", he advocated simultaneously abandoning the systems of divisions and brigades and replacing them with 12 battle groups of about 5,000 men each. Its new position is determined by the ousted establishment's set pattern of large and small, and the human numbers of many and few. It could adopt building-block methods according to wartime needs and put into practice mission-style group organization. The reverberations that his viewpoint has brought in the Army has somewhat exceeded expectations, to the point that General Reimer has required all generals to read this book. [19] Perhaps the current Army Chief of Staff has exceptional insight and recognizes that even though the lieutenant colonels' key points may not find miracle cures for the difficult issues, they can yet be regarded as the magical cure for sloughing off the thought-cocoons of those old soldiers in general's clothes.

Originally, the concept of a "group" was certainly not new to the Army. The reform of the "five group atomic troops" [20] in the 1950s and 1960s was generally considered to be an unsuccessful attempt and even criticized as having been an indirect cause leading to the U.S. military's poor show in the Vietnam War. In the eyes of Maigeleige, however, a prematurely delivered child may be unable to grow to manhood. If it is said that the birth of the "group" 30 years ago was unlucky, then today it can be said that it is a good time. Modernized weaponry has been enough to make any relatively small scale force not be inferior to previously much larger armed forces in the areas of fire power and mobility. The appearance of the C4I has especially brought armed forces which have a mutual superiority advantage to unite in battle, becoming the new growing point in fighting power. If this time still embraces the 18-type weapons ready divisional system or brigade system, then it can truly be said that it is incompatible with present needs. However, even if military technological development is the emergence of new high technology, it also is a turning point and certainly will not automatically bring on advanced military thought and institutional establishments. One good feature hides one hundred bad -- the leading position with military technology and weaponry has hidden from view this fact: The U.S. military is no different in the institutional establishment as in military ideology, and is clearly behind the advanced military technology it possesses. In this sense, using the "group" to destroy the position formed by the divisions and the brigades is the most damaging concept in the institutional establishment of the U.S. Army since the Gulf War and has represented the new thought wave of the U.S. military system establishment reform. Unlike the Army, the Air Force and the Navy do not have deep-rooted "positional" traditions. The pace of their adjustments clearly are comparatively light. The Air Force particularly made opportune use of the momentum of Desert Storm to completely eliminate the divisional system in one blow, and they took advantage of the opportunity to change all of the combat flight wings into integrated wings and took the lead in achieving the first round of system establishment reforms. After "global arrival, global power" was defined as the new objective for Air Force strategy, it continued to flap the wings of reform and began testing the plan for establishing an "Air Force Expeditionary Force" advanced by Air Force Wing Commander John Jiangpo [transliteration as printed 3068 3789]. According to this commander's idea, the so-called "Air Force Expeditionary Force" is a capable and vigorous force of 1,175 men and 34 aircraft put together to aim at striving for superiority in the air, carrying out air attacks, suppressing enemy air defense power, and air-to-air refueling, etc., that can reach a theatre of operations within 48 hours of having received the order, and that can maintain air combat capability throughout the entire course of a conflict. In this regard, it can be said that the actions of the U.S. Air Force are supersonic. They currently have established three "Air Force Expeditionary Forces" and also have completed real troop deployment. When the fourth and fifth of these forces began to be set up, its three predecessor "Air Force Expeditionary Forces" were already outstanding in such military operations as the "Southern Watch" and "Desert Thunder." [21]

Regarding the Navy, since there already has been a new strategy of "Forward Position... From Sea to Land," formation of an expeditionary force from a combination of the Naval fleet and ground forces is logical. Unlike the Army, which is taking strides to protect against difficulties, and the Air Force, which is like a charging hurricane, the Navy is more willing to go through repeated maneuvers and actual combat in order to polish the concept of the "Naval Expeditionary Force." From [the advent] of the "Ocean Risk" of the Atlantic Ocean general headquarters, of the "Double Assault" of the European general headquarters, of the "Silent Killer" of the Pacific Ocean general headquarters, and of the ground force's "Sea Dragon" maneuver since May of 1992, to the establishment of the "Southern Watch" no-fly zone in southern Iraq, the "Vigilant Warrior" to deter Iraq, as well as the "Hope Renewal" in Somalia, Bohei's [3134 7815] "Capable Guard", and Haiti's "Preservation of Democracy" -- in each of these operations the Navy has been diligently testing its new organization. [22] The mission that they stipulate for this "Naval Expeditionary Force" of one battleship group, one amphibious guard force, and Marine Corps task forces is rapid control of the seas along with combat in coastal regions. What amazes and pleasantly surprises the Navy most is that the amphibious landing equipment needed by this expeditionary force actually obtained Congressional budgetary approval. [23] The partiality that the American politicians have towards the Navy caused the Navy and especially the Marines to be treated with coldness upon their return from the Gulf War. Moreover, after establishing the new Naval system establishment, they were fully confident of occupying the number one position in the American armed forces.

The institutional reforms that began after the Gulf War not only adjusted the internal structure of the U.S. military, but also gave impetus to changes in weapons development and tactics, and even had a far-reaching effect on America's national strategy. The small-scale, flexible, and quick "Expeditionary Force," not only used for military attacks but also able to carry out non-warfare tasks, has become the new style of establishment striven for by each military branch as well as a convenient and effective tool in the hands of the U.S. government. We have discovered that, because there are these highly proficient "killer mace" [sha shou jian 3010 2087 9505] forces and a dangerous, worrisome trend has even been brought about, in handling international affairs the U.S. government has become increasingly fond of using force, makes moves more quickly, and seeks revenge for the smallest grievances. These mutual moves between the armed forces and the government, military and politics, is causing the U.S. military to begin undergoing a deep yet quite possibly disastrous change from system establishment to strategic thinking. Currently, the U.S. Department of Defense is trying to set about organizing the ground, air, and sea expeditionary forces into an integrated "Allied Task Force." This is the newest move in this change. [24] It is still difficult to foresee whether this completely integrated force will drag the U.S. military and even the United States using the same special characteristics into a troublesome mire while nimbly achieving the global mission bestowed on the U.S. government.
From Joint Campaigns to Total Dimensional War - One Step to Thorough Understanding

When we say that American military theory is behind, it is only behind relative to its advanced military technology. Compared to the servicemen of other countries, the fully technological aspect of Americans' military thinking naturally occupies an insurmountable leading position on the scale of high-tech war in hypothetical future wars. Perhaps the Soviet Arjakov [Ao'er jiakefu 1159 1422 0502 4430 1133] school of thought which was the first to advance the "new military revolution" is the only example that has come to light.

The "new military revolution" is vividly portrayed by the anvil forged in the Gulf War. Not only with the American military but also with servicemen of the whole world, these words have become a blindly ludicrous and popular slogan. It is not a matter requiring great effort due to yearning for the technology of others and following certain slogans. The only ones using a great effort are the Americans. If they want to guarantee their own leading position in a field of military reforms that has already begun and will be completed right away, then the first thing that must be resolved is to eliminate the lag that exists between U.S. military thinking and military technology. Actually, the war dust has only settled [zhan chen fu ding 2069 1057 3940 1353]. The U.S. military has not yet completed troop withdrawal from the Persian Gulf and has already begun top-to-bottom "thought exchange transfusion." This means that, after military technological reforms are initiated, they will not be able to be make up missed lessons of synchronized follow-up for military thought reform. Even though in the final analysis they are also unable to completely break away from their penchant for technology, Americans still are in this unusual encirclement from which they are unable to break free. They have achieved certain results that are equally beneficial for American servicemen as well as servicemen all over the world -- first is formation of the "joint campaign" concept, second is forging "total dimensional warfare" thinking.

Formulation of the "joint campaign" originally came from the Number One Joint Publication in November 1991 of the "United States Armed Forces Joint Operations" regulations issued by the U.S. Military Joint Conference. This is clearly brimming with new concepts of the Gulf War and has broken through the confines of the popular "cooperative war" and "contractual war" which are already dated, and even surpassed the "air/ground integrated battle" theory seen by Americans as the magic weapon. This regulation exposes the four key elements of the "joint campaign" - centralized command, equality of the armed forces, complete unification, and total depth while doing battle. It has made clear for the first time the command control authority of the battle zone unified commander; it has stipulated that any one military branch can take the leading battle role based on different situations; it has expanded "air/ground integrated battle" into ground, sea, air, and space integrated battle; and it has emphasized implementation of total depth while doing battle on all fronts. Under the strong impetus of the American Joint Chiefs of Staff meeting, each military branch is successively setting about formulating and unifying mutually matching military regulations in order to make public this new tactic representative of the direction of future wars. [While the services have formally accepted this new concept], in private they still constantly bear in mind the prominent core functions of their branches, and they especially hope to carry out a unification that is clearly demarcated -- that is a unification that makes clear each domain and authority, including regulations, laws, and the differentiation among each other's military honors. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Shalikashvili feels that this does not intend to indicate a compromise between each of the Chiefs of Staff. Adopting the publication called, "The Plan for a Joint Force in 2010," The "Model" for Leading the United States Military to Joint Operations [25], he resolutely plays the part of a modern Moses, leading the U.S. military to dismantle the fences separating the branches of the military, and stride along the difficult path of really bringing about integrated unified operations in the midst of a twilight which brings doubt.

Even though it is in the United States, a country which easily propagates and accepts new things, the situation is still far more difficult than Shalikashvili thought. In the wake of his retirement, criticism of the "joint plan" for the U.S. military has gradually increased, and skepticism has again gained ground. The Marine Corps believes that they "must not worship the 'joint [plan]' and stifle relevant future discussions on troop organization," that "the uniformity of the joint [plan] will lead to the loss of the distinctiveness of the armed forces," and that this is mutually contrary to the American spirit of "emphasizing competition and diversification." The Air Force tactfully expressed the opinion that the "2010 unification plan must develop in practice and encourage mutual emulation between the armed services," that "in this era of change and experimentation our thinking must be flexible and cannot become rigid." [26] The views of the Navy and the Army in this regard are similar and have plenty of power to destroy Shalikashvili's painstaking efforts in an instant. It is thus evident that it is not only in Eastern reforms that the situation occurs where policies shift with a change of the person in charge. As onlookers, we of course can simply sacrifice a valuable ideology for the narrow benefit of a group. Because the essence of "joint campaigns" and "joint plans" certainly is not in the confirmation or expropriation of military advantage, rather its intention is to enable each branch of the military to achieve unification of operations within a centralized battleground space, and reduce to the greatest possible extent the negative effects of each branch going its own way. Before a way is found to truly integrate the forces, this is obviously a conceivable tactic of high order. The limitation of this valuable thinking, however, lies in that its starting point and ending point have both fallen onto the level of armed force and have been unable to expand the field of vision of "joint" to all of the realms in which humans can produce confrontational behavior. The drawback of this thinking at the very end of the 20th century, a time when an inkling of the broad sense of war has already emerged, is that it appears to attract attention to such an extent that if the concept of "total dimensional warfare" had not been set forth in the 1993 U.S. Army publication, The Essentials of War, we would be simply astounded at the "anemic" realm of U.S. military thinking.

Following the 13th revision of this programmatic document, there was a penetrating insight into the various challenges that the U.S. military might face in the following years and for the first time a completely new concept of "non-combat military operations" was advanced. It was because of this concept that people saw the possibility of carrying out total positional warfare, and it brought the American Army to find an extremely lofty new name for its war theory -- "total dimensional warfare." What is interesting is that the person in charge of revising the U.S. Army's 1993 publication of The Essentials of War and who displayed a fiercely innovative spirit was General Franks, the man who was criticized by people as an operational conservative when the Navy commanded the Seventh Fleet. If not for later circumstances that changed the direction of thinking of Americans, this commander of the US Army Training and Doctrine Headquarters who first took his post after the war would have brought the history of American military thinking to a historical breakthrough. Although General Franks and the officers who compiled his military regulations were unable to reconcile the tremendous discrepancy between the two sentences, "implementation of centralized air, ground and sea operations supported by the entire theatre of operations" and "mobilization of all mastered methods in each possible operation, both combat and non-combat, so as to resolutely complete any mission assigned at the least price" in this publication The Essentials of War, they were even less able to discover that, apart from war as a military operation, there still exists the possibility for far vaster non-military war operations. However, it at least pointed out that "total dimensional warfare" should possess the special characteristics of "total depth, total height, total frontage, total time, total frequency, and multiple methods", and this precisely is the most revolutionary feature of this form of battle that has never been seen in the history of war. [27]



It is too bad that the Americans, or more specifically the American Army, discontinued this revolution too early. In one case of dissension, Holder, one-time regimental commander under General Franks who later held the post of Combined Arms Commander of the Army Training and Doctrine Headquarters, strongly cross-examined his superior officer's idea. The then-Lieutenant General Holder already was not the out-and-out vigorous Colonel Holder on the battlefield. This time he was playing the part of the Army mouthpiece for conservative tradition. His view was that "the belief that non-combat operations has its own set of principles is not welcomed among combat troops and many commanding officers are opposed to differentiating between non-combat operations and the original meaning of military operations." After Holder's death, "the Army had formed a common consensus to handle differentiation of non-combat operations as a wrong practice." They believe that if "non-combat military operations" are written into the basic regulations, it will weaken the armed forces' trait of emphasis on military affairs and also could lead to confusion in armed forces operations. With the situation going in this direction, General Franks' revolution ended in an unavoidable miscarriage. Under the inspiration of the next commander of the Army Training and Doctrine Headquarters, General Hartzog, General Holder and the editorial group for the 1998 publication of The Essentials of War finally made a major amendment to the new compendium with "a single principle covering all types of the Army's military operations" as the fundamental key. Their practice is to no longer distinguish between non-combat operations and general military operations, but to differentiate battle operations into four types -- attack, defense, stabilization, and support -- and return the original manuscript to such responsibilities of non-combat operations as rescue and protection and reassembling the old set of combat operations in order to enable it to put centralized combat principles on the right course and altogether discard the concept of "total dimensional warfare." [28] At face value, this is a move of radical reform and simplification by simply cutting out the superfluous. In reality, however, this is an American edition of poor judgment. At the same time as the theoretical confusion brought by the unripe concept of "non-combat military operations" was eliminated, the rather valuable ideological fruits that they had accidentally picked were also abandoned on account of the newly-revised compendium. It appears that in doing the one step forward, two steps back dance, all nationalities are self-taught.

Nevertheless, pointing out the U.S. Army's lack of foresight is not equivalent to saying that the "total dimensional warfare" theory cannot be criticized. Quite the opposite, there are clear flaws in this theory from both its conceptual denotation and connotation. Indeed, "total dimensional war's" understanding of battle is already much broader than any previous military theory, but as far as its innate character is concerned, it still has not escaped the "military" category. For example, the "non-military combat operations" concept we raised above is much broader in meaning than military combat operations and can at least be placed along with comparable war realms and patterns outside the field of vision of American servicemen -- it is precisely this large domain that is the area for future servicemen and politicians to develop imagination and creativity -- with the result that it also cannot count as truly meaning "total dimensional." Not to mention the phrase "total dimensional" in the U.S. Army, which also has not in the end reconciled how many dimensional spaces are referred to, whether it is that each [space] is an interrelated element of war or it is that there are two simultaneously. This is to say, it still has not been elaborated on and is in a state of chaos. If, however, what total dimension is referring to cannot be reconciled, then the nature of the relationship between each dimension, this original concept with its rich potential, can of course not be fully launched. Actually, there is no one who can launch a war in 360-degree three-dimensional space with time and other non-physical elements of total dimensionality added, and any particular war will always have its particular emphasis and is always launched within a limited dimension as well as terminated within a limited dimension. The only difference is that in the predictable future, military operations will never again be the entire war, rather they are one dimension within the total dimension. Even adding "non-combat military operations" as proposed by General Franks cannot count as total dimensionality. Only by adding all "non-military combat operations" aside from military operations can total dimensional war's complete significance be realized. What needs to be pointed out is that this ideology has never emerged in all of the theoretical research of the U.S. military since the Gulf War. [29] Even though these concepts of "non-combat military operations" and "total dimensional warfare" are full of original ideas and are already fairly close to a military ideological revolution that started from the military technology revolution, it can be said that it has already arrived under the last precipice on the rugged mountain path, and the mountain peak of the great revelation is still far away. Here, however, the Americans have stopped, and the American hares who have always been ahead of every other country in the world in military technology and military ideology have begun to gasp for breath. No matter that Sullivan or Franks let out "running hare" breaths in so many military theses after the Gulf War, they still cannot leave all the tortoises behind.

Perhaps now this is the time when Lieutenant Colonel Lonnie Henley [30] and these Americans who have called into question the capability of other countries' military revolutions should examine their consciences:

Why has there not been a revolution?
Footnotes

[1] The 21st Century Army is written by Sullivan. From the time he took his post until after he left it, he has always been unabatedly enthusiastic about this issue. Even though many people within the U.S. military and the forces of other countries have equated The 21st Century Army with The Digitized Force, Sullivan certainly does not see it this way. He believes that the U.S. Army should continually promote "integration" reforms, and that The 21st Century Army should be treated more as "an attitude and a direction" rather than an "ultimate plan." "Integration of a 21st century includes such aspects as battle theory, system of organization, training, commanding officer development, equipment and soldier issues, and base facilities, etc." (United States Military Theory, May-June, 1995) According to the general view currently held by the U.S. Army, "The 21st century force is the current Army force carrying out information-age field operations experiments, theoretical research, and equipment purchasing plans, to enable the ground combat troops to handle preparations for carrying out missions from now until 2010." (Army Training and Doctrine Headquarters Assistant Chief of Staff, Colonel Robert Jilibuer [transliteration as printed 1015 0448 1580 1422], Armed Forces Journal, October 1996)

[2] General Dennis J. Reimer said, "'The 2010 Army Concept' is also the theoretical link between 'The 21st Century Army' and 'The Army of Tomorrow'. 'The 21st Century Army' is the plan that the Army is carrying out right now... 'The Army of Tomorrow' is the Army's long-range plan that is currently under deliberation... mutual coordination between the three has determined a complete set of continuous and orderly changes, so as to guarantee that the Army can develop along a methodical direction." (See The 2010 Army Concept report, 1997)

[3] Technological renewal is a far faster phenomenon than weaponry, hiding deeper disparities: "It is easier for forerunners to fall behind." (This point can be verified from the development of the telecommunications industry and changes in computers.) This perhaps is the single most difficult disparity to bring into line for the professional military and information technology established along the lines of big industry. It is for this reason that Americans have a morbid sensitivity to the spread of all new military high technology and even new civilian technology.

[4] There are also many people within the United States who are questioning this. Colonel Allen Campen believes that "hastily adopting new tactics that people do not fully understand and that have not been tested is risky" and "quite possibly will turn a beneficial military revolution into a gamble with national security." (United States Signal Magazine, July 1995)

[5] Even though the Joint Force Air Squadron Headquarters commanded by Air Force General Charles Horner had to take orders from Schwarzkopf, in the final analysis he received the most publicity during the Gulf War.

[6] Global arrival, Global Power was the strategic plan of the U.S. Air Force after the Cold War, published in June 1990 in White Paper format. Six months later, the basic principle of this plan was tested and verified in the Gulf War.

[7] See United States Army Magazine, December 1996, "Army and Air Force Joint War."

[8] In 1997, the United States again proposed a new development strategy, Global Participation -- The Plan for the United States Air Force in the 21st Century. "Our strategic plan can be summarized in one sentence: 'the United States Air Force will become the outstanding air and space force in the world... it will be a global force enabling the United States to show itself everywhere'." (See Global Participation -- The Plan for the United States Air Force in the 21st Century)

[9] Even though President Clinton announced the elimination of the "Star Wars" plan, in reality the United States military has never relaxed the pace of space militarization. Global Participation --21st Century United States Air Force Concept especially points out that "the first step of this revolutionary change is to turn the U.S. Air Force into an air and space force, then to remold it into an air and space force." The sequence of these changes has obviously embodied the core revisions. The space flight headquarters is putting even more emphasis on the function of space flight troops (specifically see United States Military Space Flight Troops and Unified Space Flight Theory). In April 1998, the U.S. space flight headquarters issued a long-range plan, "Tentative Plan For 2020," and advanced four war concepts for military space flight -- space control, global war, total force consolidation, and global cooperation. By 2020, space control must have achieved the following five objectives: ensure entry into space; keep watch over space; protect the space systems of the United States and its allies; prevent enemies from utilizing the space systems of the United States and its allies; and stop enemies from utilizing space systems. (See Modern Military Affairs, 1998, No. 10, pp. 10-11.)

[10] "The White Paper, 'From Sea to Land', issued in 1992 by the Navy and Navy ground forces, marks changes in the core and emphasis of strategy... emphasis on naval implementation of forward deployment, this is the most essential difference reflected between 'Forward Position... From Sea to Land' and 'From Sea to Land'." (Navy Admiral J.M. Boorda, Marine Corps Magazine, March 1995) This admiral also bluntly demanded the "Navy's preference in budgetary matters."

[11] See the U.S. Department of Defense's National Defense Report for the fiscal year 1998.

[12] See The Gulf War -- Final Report of the U.S. Department of Defense to Congress and Appendix 6.

[13] McNamara, who went from president of the Ford Motor Company to head of the Department of Defense, introduced the business accounting system of private enterprise and the concept of "cost comparison" to the United States military. He has made the forces learn how to spend less money when purchasing weapons, but they have other standards for how to fight. "The Department of Defense must achieve the following objective: exchange our country's security for the least amount of risk, least amount of expenditure, and, in the event of a entering a war, the least number of casualties." (McNamara, Looking Back on the Tragedy and the Lessons of the Vietnam War, pp. 27-29)

[14] Colonel Xiaochaersi Denglapu [transliteration as printed 1420 2686 1422 2448 6772 2139 2528] points out that "casualties are an effective way to weaken America's strength... For this reason, enemies can bring about our casualties by dashing ahead recklessly without regard to losses or by achieving a blind tactical victory." ("Analysis From the Standpoint of the Enemy 'Unification Concept for 2010'," Joint Force Quarterly, 1997-1998 Fall/Winter)

[15] According to the U.S. Department of Defense's National Defense Report for the fiscal year 1997, there are 20 advanced technological items that obtained Congressional approval: "1, rapid force delivery systems; 2, precision attack multi-barrel launch systems; 3, high altitude maximum range unmanned vehicles; 4, medium altitude maximum range unmanned vehicles; 5, precision target capture signal systems; 6, cruise missile defense; 7, simulated battlefields; 8, joint counter (submarine) mines; 9, ballistic missile interception with kinetic energy weaponry; 10, advanced technology utilized to formulate a high-level joint plan; 11, battlefront understanding and data transmission; 12, anti large-scale destruction weapons; 13, air bases (ports) for the biological weapons defense; 14, advanced navigational systems; 15, combat discernment; 16, joint rear service; 17, combat vehicle survivability; 18, short life expectancy and low cost medium-scale transport helicopters; 19, semi-automatic image handling; 20, small-scale air-fired false targets."

[16] "What Kind of Army Does the U.S. Army Need in the 21st Century?" Xiao'en Neile [transliteration as printed 5135 1869 0355 0519] in Army Times, October 16 1995, reviews this issue in detail.

[17] According to the United States Army Times, "After five years of analysis, study, and military internal discussion, Army authorities in the end finally formulated a new establishment for armored units and mechanized mobile units. The new plan is called 'The 21st Century Establishment'. ...a support headquarters composed of troop units, one armored division, two mechanized mobile units, artillery units (brigade level), one aviation unit, and one unit for rear services management and support. The entire division consists of 15,719 men (containing 417 reserve duty personnel)." The personnel putting this establishment together explain that "this newly planned establishment does not count as a revolutionary establishment... actually it is seen as a relatively conservative establishment." (See Army Times, June 22, 1998, Jimu Taisiwen [transliteration as printed 0679 1191 3141 2448 2429].)

[18] See John R Brinkerhoff, "The Brigade-based New Army," Parameter Quarterly, Winter 1997.

[19] For the detailed viewpoint of the book Break Localized Fronts, see the article by Xiao'en Neile in the United States Army Times, June 9 1997.

[20] In order to suit the needs of nuclear war and to try to enable troops to carry out combat in the nuclear battlefield as well as enable survivability, in 1957 the U.S. Army reorganized the atomic divisions with the group divisions. The entire division was between 11,000 and 14,600 men, divided into five combat groups with strong motorization, and all with tactical nuclear weapons. However, this division's attack capability on a non-nuclear battlefield was relatively low.

[21] For the U.S. Air Force expeditionary force concept, see the article by Air Force Brigadier General William Looney in Air Power Journal, Winter 1996.

[22] Just as the Head of the Naval War Office, Kaiersuo [transliteration as printed 0418 1422 4792], and Army Commander Wangdi [transliteration as printed 5345 6611] said, under the circumstances of the continual cutting of military spending and fewer and fewer bases abroad, "the United States needs a unified combat force that is relatively small in scale but rapidly deployed and easy to assemble and train." (May 1993, Naval Institute Journal) For the "Naval Expeditionary Force," see Marine Corps Magazine, March 1995.

[23] See November 1995, Sea Power, "From Over the Horizon to Over the Beach": "More Than Expected Budget Funds -- The U.S. Congress recently agreed to allocate funds in the fiscal year 1996 to build the seventh multi-use amphibious attack vessel, making the Navy very happy. Because of budgetary limitations, the U.S. Navy plans to wait until 2001 to apply for allocation for this ship... the Navy originally decided to put off requesting allocation to build the first LPD-17 amphibious dock transport until the 1998 fiscal year rather than 1996. However, What exceeded expectations was that Congress voted to approve allocation of US $974 million for this warship."

[24] In 1993, the United States Report on the Complete Investigation of Defense proposed, "The following troop 'package' is enough to handle a large-scale regional conflict: four to five Army units; four to five ground force expeditionary units; 10 Air Force combat mechanized forces; 100 Air Force heavy bombers; four to five Naval warship combat troops; special combat forces... other than this, we have proposed a new concept for troops abroad - 'self-adapted special establishment unified troops'. According to the requirements of the battle zone command, it is organized from specially designated Air Force troops, ground troops, and special type combat troops and Navy troops."

[25] For the "Joint Doctrine for 2010" put forward in 1996 by the United States joint military meeting, see Joint Force Quarterly, Summer 1996. In the Winter 1996 edition of Joint Force Quarterly, Naval War Commander Johnson and Air Force Chief of Staff Fogleman both expressed support for the "Joint Doctrine for 2010." Army Chief of Staff Reimer also immediately put forward the "Army Concept for 2010" in response to the "Joint Doctrine for 2010."

[26] See the article, "Reform Will Not Be Smooth Sailing," by Commander Huofuman [transliteration as printed 7202 1133 2581] in the United States Naval Institute Journal, January 1998.

[27] There is a detailed introduction to "Total Dimensional Warfare" in the 1997 World Military Almanac. (pp 291-294)

[28] According to the article, "Changes to the Newly Published Draft of 'Essentials of War'," by Xiaoen Neile in the United States Army Times, August 18, 1997.

[29] There probably is only the article, "A Military Theoretical Revolution: The Various Mutually Active Dimensions of War," by Antuli'ao Aiqieweiliya [transliteration as printed 1344 0956 0448 1159 1002 0434 4850 6849 0068], that has pointed out that the "various dimensions" of war should not be such things as length, breadth, and depth indicated in geometric and space theory. Instead, it is such factors that are intimately related to war as politics, society, technology, combat, and logistics. It is too bad, however, that he still centers on the military axis to look at war and has not formed a breakthrough in war denotation.

[30] At the Strategy Conference held by the United States Army War College in April 1996, Army Lieutenant Colonel Lonnie Henley wrote a paper for a report entitled 21st Century China: Strategic Partner... or Opponent. The conclusion was: "In at least the first 25 years of the next century, China will be unable to carry out a military revolution." (See the Foreign Military Data of the Military Science Academy Foreign Military Research Department, June 1997.)

1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   ...   17


The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2016
send message

    Main page